Tuesday, October 16, 2018

A mixture of true facts and false facts floating on the surface of a great mass of wishes and fears and memories

From Death Under Sail by C.P. Snow. Page 185.
All the information you're ever told is a mixture of true facts and false facts floating on the surface of a great mass of wishes and fears and memories.

The flames kindled on the 4th of July 1776 have spread over too much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism

From Founders Online My own paragraphing.
From Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 12 September 1821

Monticello Sep. 12. 21.

Dear Sir,

I am just returned from my other home, and shall within a week go back to it for the rest of the autumn. I find here your favor of August 20th and was before in arrear for that of May 19th. I cannot answer, but join in your question, of May 19th. Are we to surrender the pleasing hopes of seeing improvement in the moral and intellectual condition of Man?

The events of Naples and Piedmont cast a gloomy cloud over that hope and Spain an Portugal are not beyond jeopardy. And what are we to think of this northern triumvirate, arming their nations to dictate despotism to the rest of world? And the evident connivance of England, as the price of secret stipulations for continental armies, if her own should take side with her malcontent and pulverized people? And what of the poor Greeks, and their small chance of amelioration even if the hypocritical autocrat should take them under the iron cover of his Ukazes. Would this be lighter or safer than that of the Turk?

These, my dear friend, are speculations for the new generation, as, before they will be resolved, you and I must join our deceased brother Floyd, yet I will not believe our labors are lost. I shall not die without a hope that light and liberty are on steady advance. We have seen, indeed, once within the record of history a complete eclipse of the human mind continuing for centuries. And this too by swarms of the same northern barbarians, conquering and taking possession of the countries and governments of the civilized world. Should this be again attempted, should the same northern hordes, allured again by the corn wine, and oil of the south, be able again to settle their swarms in the countries of their growth, the art of printing alone and the vast dissemination of books, will maintain the mind where it is, and raise the conquering ruffians to the level of the conquered, instead of degrading those to that of their conquerors and even should the cloud of barbarism and despotism again obscure the science and liberties of Europe, this country remains to preserve and restore light and liberty to them. In short, the flames kindled on the 4th of July 1776 have spread over too much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism. On the contrary they will consume these engines, and all who work them.

I think with you that there should be a school of instruction for our navy as well as artillery; and I do not see why the same establishment might not suffice for both. Both require the same basis of general mathematics, adding projectiles and fortifications for the artillery exclusively, and astronomy and the theory of navigation exclusively for the naval students.
Bezout conducted both schools in France, and has left us the best book extant for their joint and separate instruction. It ought not to require a separate professor.

A 4th of July oration delivered in the town of Milford in your state gives to Samuel Chase the credit of having ‘first started the cry of independence in the ears of his country men.’ Do you remember any thing of this? I do not. I have no doubt it was uttered in Massachusetts even before it was by Thomas Paine. But certainly I never considered Samuel Chase as foremost, or even forward in that hallowed cry. I know that Maryland hung heavily on our backs, and that Chase, although first named was not most in unison with us of that delegation, either in politics or morals et c’est ainsi que l’on ecrit l’ histoire!

Your doubt of the legitimacy of the word gloriola is resolved by Cicero, who in his letter to Lucceius expresses a wish ‘ut nosmatipsi vivi gloriola nostra perpruamur’.

Affectly adieu

Th: Jefferson

His inmost mind, a region difficult to penetrate under the best of circumstances

From the Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman.
“Echoes of the secret meeting of the C.I.D. angered the Cabinet members who had been left out and who belonged to the sternly pacifist wing of the party. Henry Wilson learned that he was regarded as the villain of the proceedings and that they are “calling for my head.” At this time began the split in the Cabinet which was to be so critical in the ultimate days of decision. The government maintained the disingenuous position that the military “conversations” were, in Haldane’s words, “just the natural and informal outcome of our close friendship with France.” Natural outcome they might be; informal they were not. As Lord Esher with a certain realism said to the Prime Minister, the plans worked out jointly by the General Staffs have “certainly committed us to fight, whether the Cabinet likes it or not.”

There is no record what Asquith replied or what, in his inmost mind, a region difficult to penetrate under the best of circumstances, he thought on this crucial question.

Moon, Mars, and Milky Way

From NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day.

Click to enlarge.

Moon, Mars, and Milky Way
Image Credit & Copyright: Taha Ghouchkanlu (TWAN)

Explanation: Just two weeks ago, dark skies over the desert in northern Iran held this alluring celestial vista. The dramatic digital mosaic finds the Moon and Mars alongside the Milky Way's dusty rifts, stars, and nebulae. Captured through a series of exposures to cover a range in brightness, that night's otherwise Full Moon is immersed in Earth's shadow. It actually appears fainter and redder than the Red Planet itself during the widely watched total lunar eclipse. For cosmic tourists, the skyscape also includes the Lagoon (M8) and Trifid (M20) nebulae and planet Saturn shining against the Milky Way's pale starlight. The Moon isn't quite done with its shadow play, though. Today, the New Moon partially eclipses the Sun for much of northern planet Earth.

A sign of distemper or the sign of an enemy

From Voices of Reason—and Unreason by Peggy Noonan.
The screaming from the first seconds of the first hearings, the coordinated interruptions, the insistent rudeness and accusatory tones—none of it looked like the workings of the ordered democracy that has been the envy of the world.


The howling and screeching that interrupted the hearings and the voting, the people who clawed on the door of the court, the ones who chased senators through the halls and screamed at them in elevators, who surrounded and harassed one at dinner with his wife, who disrupted and brought an air of chaos, who attempted to thwart democratic processes so that the people could not listen and make their judgments:

Do you know how that sounded to normal people, Republican and Democratic and unaffiliated? It sounded demonic. It didn’t sound like “the resistance” or #MeToo. It sounded like the shrieking in the background of an old audiotape of an exorcism.
Noonan is a wonderful writer with whose opinions I agree just about as often as I disagree. She can often put the best case for a position with which I disagree.

In this instance, however, we are reasonably aligned in our estimation, though I would go one step further.

What dismays me, and I suspect others though I have not seen this much discussed, is that this appears to be more than resistance or protest, this appears to be an attack on our system of government. We are a democratic federal republic. We have built-in principles and checks and balances to constrain government against individuals, to protect minorities from majorities, to constrain passions in deference to deliberation, to ensure the blessings of freedom and liberty while channeling cooperative behavior. These strike me as worthwhile and noble goals. We have not perfectly encapsulated the best of Age of Enlightenment thinking, but it is a pretty robust, pragmatic effort which has stood us in good stead compared to all the rest of the world.

As Tom Wolfe paraphrased the French philosopher Jean-Fran├žois Revel, "the dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe."

The structure of our federal Republic is not haphazard. All the elements have their purpose. All have their drawbacks.

It is distressing enough to see people, professors, professional commentators, etc. trying to launch wholesale attacks on critical elements (Supreme Court, Electoral College, Due Process, Free Speech) simply for expedient short term political gains. Distressing because they are ignorant in their passion (they don't know the purposes served by the Electoral College) or distressing because they are happy to break the system just to get what they want.

More distressing still are the mobs doxxing and stalking our elected representatives, the attempted assassinations, the ambush physical assaults, investing the homes of our appointed executives (for example the FCC), disrupting the orderly governance of our nation. Protesting and editorials are one thing. Trying to coercively impose your will on all your fellow citizens by breaking our government and governance is a step too far.

All of us have experienced elections which we dislike, indeed which we think to be dangerous. Elections, court decisions, government policies, etc. But we all subscribe to one system because it both enables and constrains us all. None of us has the omnipotence to be truly certain that our individual judgment trumps the cumulative wishes and wisdom of all of our 330 million fellow citizens.

Screaming erratic mobs seeking to arrogate to themselves the power of decision making on behalf of all Americans is not just an act of anarchy or a symptom of personal imbalance. They are an attack on the rules we have all gained from, suffered from but also agreed to.

To hijack Noonan's construct, It sounds like an attack on our government, on our country and on ourselves as participants in our federal republican democracy.

When ideological obfuscation and local reporting collide

From A Suicidal Nanny, an Underground Industry and 3 Babies Stabbed by Liz Robbins and Christina Goldbaum.

An interesting exercise in recollection. The horror the New York Times reports:
Dark circles formed like warning signs beneath Yu Fen Wang’s eyes as she worked 12-hour graveyard shifts in a Queens maternity center that operated on the margins of legality. Her family said she had grown gaunt, could not sleep and told her husband she no longer wanted to live.

Her employers, however, said they needed her to work. And her family needed the money. She earned less than $100 a day, they said, working in a private house that had been converted into a combined nursery and hotel for newborn babies and their mothers.

An open secret in the Flushing community, the center was part of an underground industry catering to a demanding clientele: local mothers resting after childbirth and Chinese visitors coming to have their babies in the United States, a practice known as “birth tourism.”

On Sept. 21, at 3:40 a.m., these dangers collided to near-fatal effect when, the police say, Mrs. Wang stabbed three babies sleeping in bassinets on the first floor — all girls — and two adults. She then turned the knife on her own neck and wrists.

The victims all survived. But the horrific act turned a spotlight on a pocket of immigrant New York, where a loose network of businesses tend to mothers and infants in the crucial, fragile month after childbirth but operate without any government oversight. The center, Mei Xin Care, is one of dozens in the area that vary widely in amenities and quality, leaving workers with few avenues for complaint, and families with little to guide them other than word of mouth, internet advertisements and blind trust.
All news has a context, whether it is documented or not.

In the early 1980s there was much discussion in some circles regarding Asian immigrants, I think primarily on the West Coast, gaming the benefits system by bringing over aged relatives so that their parents could take advantage of generous elderly welfare and retirement related social programs, without ever having contributed to them. My recollection is that the story puttered around for 2-5 years before ebbing away. I don't know if it turned out that the numbers were so small that it was a problem not worth solving, or perhaps there were tweaks to immigration policy which closed the loophole. I don't know. All I know is that I stopped seeing stories about the problem.

Similarly, with this New York Times report. Since at least the 2000s, perhaps earlier, there have been sporadic reports in either the mainstream press or in specialty fields about anchor babies. Anchor babies are a means of gaming the immigration process. Foreign women in late stages of pregnancy come to the US in order to give birth here. Under the 14th Amendment, anyone born in the US automatically is the beneficiary of US citizenship. The anchor concept arises from what happens after the child is born. Under the right circumstances, particularly after the child has reached adulthood, the parents can be brought in to the US as permanent residents and possibly later citizens. It involves long term planning but it is an effective way to game the system and skirt the increasingly stringent immigration rules.

Anchor babies have been a running dispute between Democrats and Republicans from a policy perspective for a couple of decades. Democrats tend to see the term as pejorative if not also racist. Republicans are incensed about gaming the system, regardless of who does it, especially if it imposes burdens on taxpayers.

One of the hall-marks of the debate is that Democrats tend to pooh-pooh the idea that anchor babies are a real phenomenon at all or decry it as inconsequential. As a candidate, Donald Trump made some statements about anchor babies, as did Jeb Bush which elicited much criticism from the New York Times and the Washington Post.

For example; Eliminating Birthright Citizenship Would Be a Bureaucratic and Costly Change of Law by Margaret D. Stock in The New York Times.
Changing the constitutional rule of birthright citizenship — a principle of equality that millions of Americans fought and died for in the Civil War — would not only cost billions, but would create more problems than it could solve.
From the Washington Post, The myth of the ‘anchor baby’ deportation defense by Janell Ross.
Donald Trump said it; Jeb Bush said it, too.

Frankly, a whole range of people have used the term "anchor baby" this week in public discussions about Trump's immigration-related policy ideas -- ideas that include an end to the nearly 150-year-old practice of granting citizenship to anyone born in the United States.

It's the former, known as "birthright citizenship," which is delineated in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. And as all sorts of public figures have discussed the future of the 14th Amendment this week, the more colloquial -- many say pejorative -- term "anchor baby" has come up over and over again.

But the anchor baby, while potent politically, is a largely mythical idea.
The Democratic Party leaning mainstream media, instinctively disparages the idea of anchor babies and deny its reality for policy making purposes. But even in 2015 when it first became a campaign issue, even the Washington Post's own fact checker had to concede the factual case though they might disagree with the policy implications.

From ‘Birth tourists’ and ‘anchor babies:’ What Trump and Bush got right by Glenn Kessler.
First, we are dealing with estimates. But Trump is essentially correct that about 300,000 children a year are born in the United States with at least one parent who is an undocumented immigrant.

In 2010, both the Pew Research Center and the Center for Immigration Studies estimated that more than 300,000 such children were born in the United States every year. Pew pegged the figure at 340,000 in 2008, while CIS gave a range of 300,000 to 400,000. Under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, all were recognized as U.S. citizens at birth.

Pew estimated that four out of every five children born to at least one authorized immigrant parent were born in the United States, for a total of 4 million in 2009. That number has probably grown by an additional 2 million in the past six years. Birth rates have declined since the Great Recession, so it’s possible the annual figure has dropped slightly below 300,000 (7.5 percent of 3.9 million births is about 294,000), but not by much.


So what is Bush talking about? A spokesman says he is referencing an entirely different issue: women who come to the United States on tourist visas — and thus are on U.S. soil legally — but for the express purpose of having the child born in the United States.

The Washington Post wrote about the trend in 2010, noting that the regulations do not permit the State Department to refuse visas simply because a woman is pregnant. Rolling Stone magazine recently documented the case of a Chinese couple who paid $20,000 to be housed in a small hotel in Los Angeles while they were awaiting the birth of the child. The main motivation — ensuring the child could be educated in the United States.

How many women take this step? This is even more difficult to estimate. Steven A. Camarota of CIS in 2015 estimated the number of “birth tourists” was about 36,000, after comparing the data for the number of foreign-born mothers who gave birth during the year against the number of such women who showed up in the U.S. Census. The gap was almost 36,000, but he cautioned that it was a very rough estimate.

Camarota, in an interview, said the largest share of birth tourists was probably from East Asia, but many also came from Eastern Europe (such as Russia) and Nigeria. A report in Vice says that a handful of pregnant women board every flight from Moscow to Miami, which is apparently a popular spot for Russian birth tourists.

But The Huffington Post, quoting Chinese sources, said the total number of Chinese birth tourists is projected to be 60,000 in 2014, a sixfold increase over 2012 — apparently spurred on by a romantic comedy, “Finding Mr. Right,” about a Chinese woman who flew to Seattle so she could have an American baby (and also go shopping).

“The conversation about immigrant families in the U.S. is typically centered around people from Latin America seeking economic opportunities in the States,” The Huffington Post said. “But as incomes in China rise and visa hurdles fall, women from China are making up a larger share of foreign births in the U.S., and they’re complicating many of the popular ideas about immigrant mothers.”

Federal authorities recently conducted high-profile raids on businesses in southern California that charged up to $60,000 to arrange the tourist visas and provide housing in anticipation for the birth.

While precise figures are hard to come by, the number of children born to undocumented immigrants each year in the United States still easily outpaces the number of children born to women who come to the United States to give birth using a legal tourist visa. What is a more important issue is obviously a policy question beyond the purview of The Fact Checker.

But given the apparent surge of Chinese applicants, Bush is likely correct that most of the birth tourists are Asian. Meanwhile, Trump is correct that number of births to undocumented immigrants is about 300,000 a year. Both earn a Geppetto Checkmark.
Kessler marked Trump and Bush as accurately describing the factual conditions underpinning their policy recommendations.

So in 2015, there was a lot of mainstream media, caught up in the fever of an election, disparaging the notion that anchor babies were a real phenomenon or that a surprisingly high percentage of children born in the US are born to illegal aliens. In a ten minute search, I find that whereas I thought most of the misrepresentation came from The New York Times, more of the column inches and articles came from the Washington Post. But only the Washington Post acknowledged the underlying facts.

Which brings us back to A Suicidal Nanny, an Underground Industry and 3 Babies Stabbed today. The New York Times is reporting on the reality that they denied in 2015. They never use the term anchor baby as it was discussed in 2015. Perhaps they have changed their style guide. Perhaps they are simply seeking to draw attention away from the fact that current reporting is at odds with their recent reporting. For whatever reasons, there are no anchor babies in their report, but there is birth tourism.

There is a lot of cultural puff they overlay on the article, trying to mask the underlying anchor baby reality, pardon me "birth tourism" reality.
Centers like this one — which was alternately known as Mei Bao, or “beautiful baby” in Chinese — provide two services. The first is for newly-arrived immigrant mothers practicing a Chinese tradition some 1,000 years old in which they recuperate for a month after childbirth while other women, often called “aunties,” care for their infants. Authorities said the centers also provide assistance to women from China who wish to give birth in the United States in order to obtain instant citizenship for their children, which is legal under immigration law.


One neighbor said in an interview that she saw a steady stream of clients arriving, sometimes in fancy cars.

Some of them would have been following the custom of a monthlong rest after childbirth. The period culminates in a “red egg celebration” to mark the baby’s survival of its fragile first weeks, said Margaret M. Chin, a professor of sociology in the Asian American Studies program at Hunter College.

The centers are an alternative to obtaining visas so family members can fly to the United States, or returning to China, where health care is often less sophisticated. For several thousand dollars, new mothers have access to 24-hour nannies and cooks.
The reporters, through rose-tinted glasses, are apparently trying to peddle the idea that this is just an expression of a cultural tradition, only occurring in the US because of its superior medical services. All the rest of the article belies this fig leaf. It is a business built on circumventing immigration rules.

And it is a big business.
An open secret in the Flushing community, the center was part of an underground industry catering to a demanding clientele: local mothers resting after childbirth and Chinese visitors coming to have their babies in the United States, a practice known as “birth tourism.”


But the horrific act turned a spotlight on a pocket of immigrant New York, where a loose network of businesses tend to mothers and infants in the crucial, fragile month after childbirth but operate without any government oversight. The center, Mei Xin Care, is one of dozens in the area that vary widely in amenities and quality, leaving workers with few avenues for complaint, and families with little to guide them other than word of mouth, internet advertisements and blind trust.


There are some 40 such maternity centers — in private homes and apartments — advertising their services online in the New York and New Jersey area, and nearly 20 in the Flushing neighborhood.


For Chinese birth tourists, Los Angeles is the marquee destination. Centers compete with each other by advertising stays at plush hotels, shopping extravaganzas in nearby malls, and state-of-the-art hospitals. Fees can range from $50,000 to $80,000.


In the New York metropolitan area, more upscale maternity centers tend to exist in New Jersey and Long Island suburbs. The ones in Flushing appear to be smaller, and less expensive, options, where mothers stay in rooms that often have been subdivided.
About what might be the appropriate policies to address anchor babies or birth tourism, there is much legitimate debate. Denying that it exists and denying that it fosters hardships and tragedies for both the participants and for Americans is a dereliction of journalistic duty and becomes morally repugnant when the denial seems to be driven primarily for partisan purposes.

It is akin to the voter fraud issue. Democrats deny that it happens at all or that it has any consequence. Republicans claim that it involves millions of voters. The Democrats are demonstrably wrong. There is plenty of evidence of lots of voter fraud in many places and compelling evidence that in some select elections it is material enough to swing the outcome. On the other hand, it is almost certainly not the case that this involves tens of millions of votes or even millions of votes. My guess is that, across the nation, there are probably some low hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes and that clearly there are occasions where outcomes are changed because of those fraudulent votes (or counts).

But I don't know the real magnitude and nobody else does either and we won't know until we actually tackle the problem. Till then, it remains a festering sore weakening trust in our body politic.

Turning a blind eye to a problem because you fear what the policies that a clear factual investigation might yield is almost always the worst policy of all.

Top 12 Favorite Perceptual Illusions

An excellent compilation of optical illusions. The mind is a wonderful thing.

Click to see the thread.

Monday, October 15, 2018

The rain beat against the windows

From Death Under Sail by C.P. Snow. Page 180.
The first hours of the morning might have been extracted from our peaceful holidays of the years before, so marked was the lull in our anxious suspense. Inevitably, however, the tranquility became broken. Long before lunch-time Tonya was sitting with her reddened lips set in an angry straight line. Minor irritabilities crept in insidiously throughout the afternoon, which turned cold and windy enough to keep us together in the sitting room. The close contact made our tempers worse. The rain beat against the windows; grey clouds followed each other across the wide marshland sky.

On the river there was a solitary yacht, beating slowly up against the wind; two young men, with rain streaming down their faces, were sailing her grimly but without any skill, and they crossed and re-crossed the river in front of the bungalow without gaining a yard. I watched their maneuvers dejectedly.
Magnificent description but very much of its time. Having lived in England in the mid-1960s, with coal fires, no central heating, old fusty infrastructure and damp houses, cloth covered furniture with generations of smells, few phones and scarcely any TV, I can picture exactly what he is describing. But it is a world now gone and remembered by fewer and fewer each year, immortalized in old stories such as this.

Threw off suddenly and openly all the restraints of morality, all sensation to character, and unblushingly avowed and acted on the principle that power was right

From Founders Online My own paragraphing.
Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 11 January 1816

To John Adams

Monticello Jan. 11. 16.

Dear Sir,

Of the last five months I have past four at my other domicil, for such it is in a considerable degree. No letters are forwarded to me there, because the cross post to that place is circuitous and uncertain. During my absence therefore they are accumulating here, and awaiting acknowledgements. This has been the fate of your favor of November 13th

I agree with you in all it’s eulogies on the 18th century. It certainly witnessed the sciences and arts, manners and morals, advanced to a higher degree than the world had ever before seen. And might we not go back to the era of the Borgias, by which time the barbarous ages had reduced national morality to it’s lowest point of depravity, and observe that the arts and sciences, rising from that point, advanced gradually through all the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, softening and correcting the manners and morals of man?

I think too we may add, to the great honor of science and the arts, that their natural effect is, by illuminating public opinion, to erect it into a censor, before which the most exalted tremble for their future, as well as present fame. With some exceptions only, through the 17th and 18th centuries morality occupied an honorable chapter in the political code of nations. You must have observed while in Europe, as I thought I did, that those who administered the governments of the greater powers at least, had a respect to faith, and considered the dignity of their government as involved in it’s integrity. A wound indeed was inflicted on this character of honor in the 18th century by the partition of Poland. But this was the atrocity of a barbarous government chiefly, in conjunction with a smaller one still scrambling to become great, while one only of those already great, and having character to lose, descended to the baseness of an accomplice in the crime.

France, England, Spain shared in it only inasmuch as they stood aloof and permitted it’s perpetration. How then has it happened that these nations, France especially and England, so great, so dignified, so distinguished by science and the arts, plunged at once into all the depths of human enormity, threw off suddenly and openly all the restraints of morality, all sensation to character, and unblushingly avowed and acted on the principle that power was right? Can this sudden apostasy from national rectitude be accounted for?

The treaty of Pilnitz seems to have begun it, suggested perhaps by the baneful precedent of Poland. Was it from the terror of monarchs, alarmed at the light returning on them from the West, and kindling a volcano under their thrones? Was it a combination to extinguish that light, and to bring back, as their best auxiliaries, those enumerated by you, the Sorbonne, the Inquisition, the Index Expurgatorius, and the knights of Loyola? Whatever it was, the close of the century saw the moral world thrown back again to the age of the Borgias, to the point from which it had departed three hundred years before.
France, after crushing and punishing the conspiracy of Pilnitz, went herself deeper and deeper into the crimes she had been chastising. I say France, and not Bonaparte; for although he was the head and mouth, the nation furnished the hands which executed his enormities. England, although in opposition, kept full pace with France, not indeed by the manly force of her own arms, but by oppressing the weak, and bribing the strong. At length the whole choir joined and divided the weaker nations among them.

Permit me to place here my affectionate respects to mrs Adams, and to add for yourself the assurances of cordial friendship and esteem.

Th: Jefferson

Do not despair of man, and do not scold him

Do Not!
by Stevie Smith

Do not despair of man, and do not scold him,
Who are you that you should so lightly hold him?
Are you not also a man, and in your heart
Are there not warlike thoughts and fear and smart?
Are you not also afraid and in fear cruel,
Do you not think of yourself as usual,
Faint for ambition, desire to be loved,
Prick at a virtuous thought by beauty moved?
You love your wife, you hold your children dear,
Then say not that Man is vile, but say they are.
But they are not. So is your judgement shown
Presumptuous, false, quite vain, merely your own
Sadness for failed ambition set outside,
Made a philosophy of, prinked, beautified
In noble dress and into the world sent out
To run with the ill it most pretends to rout.
Oh know your own heart, that heart's not wholly evil,
And from the particular judge the general,
If judge you must, but with compassion see life,
Or else, of yourself despairing, flee strife.